02.13.13 OSBT Draft Study Session Minutes 01-31-13
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Study Session
Minutes
Meeting Date January 31, 2013
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
John Putnam Allyn Feinberg Tom IsaacsonShelley Dunbar Frances Hartogh
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Mike Patton Jim ReederDean Paschall Eric StoneJoe Reale
Steve Armstead Mark Gershman Ronda RomeroLeah Case
Directors Updates
Dean Paschallgave the Board an update on the trails condition and reportingprogram. He
showed the Boardthe trails conditionandreporting page on the Open Space and Mountain Parks
(OSMP) Website, and gaveanoverview on how this program will work.
JohnPutnamasked staff how the wordis getting outto the publicabout social media.Dean said
staff was waiting until everything was working correctly and isworking on this now. Mike
Patton said staffwill get a press release out.TheBoard said they will look at this site and report
back what they think. Frances Hartogh askedif there was a way to see how many people visit
this site. Staff said they currentlytrack the OSMP Website for this.
Voice and Sight Tag Program Recommendation Details
Steve Armstead, Environmental Planner, and Mark Gershman, Planner Supervisor, gave a
presentation on the Voice and Sight Tag (V&S)Program. The purposes of this study session are
to: 1) discuss City Council feedback from the November13, 2012 study session on the
evaluation of the V&SProgram, 2) provide an opportunity for the Open Space Board of Trustees
(OSBT) members and staff to discuss details for revocation and differential fees and3) for staff
andtheBoard members to discuss the process for developing an adaptive management and
monitoring program to evaluate Tag Program success.
Staff proposed several questions for the Board:
1.In addition to aggressive dog, failure to protect wildlife and V&Sviolations, what, if
any, other dog-related violations do OSBT members recommend should contribute to the
revocation of V&SProgram privileges? How many convictions cause revocation?
2.What, if any, feedback would the OSBT like to provide on fine increases for V&S and
dog-at-large violations?
3.What do OSBTmembers recommend as the appropriate schedule of V&SProgram fees
for City of Boulder, Boulder County and out of Boulder County residents?
4.Does the OSBT have any questions or comments on the recommended process for
developing an adaptive management and monitoring program?
Steveand Mark’spresentation is saved at S:OSMP\admin\OSBT\Study Sessions\2013
AGENDA ITEM 1B PAGE 1
Question one –
Frances said violating aseasonal wildlife closuresshould result inone strikeand given the nature
of that offense,that participant isout of the V&SProgram.She said she has seen many studies
that show the negative effect of offleash dogs on wildlife.John noted thatthe CountyParks and
Open SpaceAdvisory Committee posted their annual packet including a dog compliance report.
He said restrictions are put in place to maximize compliance.
Frances asked if a dog not accompanied by their guardianis a V&Scontrol issue.Steve said it
would most likely be aV&Sviolation (dog-at-large) unless the dog waschasing wildlife;then it
has the potential to be awildlife violation. Frances asked if the unaccompanied dog would get
one strike or two. Eric Stone said if the dog was at-large aswell as in a wildlife closure aranger
would write both violations.Francesasked if the dog wasoutside awildlife closure, but still out
of sight;what the violation is.Eric saidit would bedog-at-large.
Shelley Dunbar asked if there was currently something in place for reinstatementinto the V&S
Programand if it has been done in the past.Steve said staff has worked with the Humane Society
to put something in place, but it has never been used.
Shelley asked if someone received a violation somewhere other than on OSMP land, would that
be a strike in the V&S Program. Steve said there is overlapwith the current system into the city;
such as on Parks and Recreation land. Shelley asked if someone’sdog escapes and is found
within the city,can they get aV&Sviolation.Steve saidthecurrent program applies to OSMP
and City Park land only.Mike said if a dog is not on OSMP,it will be up to Animal Control’s
discretion. Joe Reale said if the dog guardian has made reasonable effort to restrain their dog,
they cannot be issued a summons. Shelley asked if staff was proposing that any violation within
the city would result in a V&S violation. Steve said if the dog is off-leash and not being managed
by V&S,yes. Shelley said there is a greater punishment for V&S holders as they will have an
additional penalty;those that do not have the V&S Tagwould only receive one summons.
Frances askedif a dog chases wildlife or is aggressive in a city dog park,could they lose their
V&S tag. Staff said yes;aguardian hascommitted to a certain type of behavior. Tom asked if
this proposed system would only be integrated into the City of Boulder. Staff said yes.John
asked if two summonses were issued, would that lead to two strikes. Joe said currently it would
only be one strike, but the Boardcan look at changing this. John asked if staff has aproposal to
change this. Staff said they are not proposing any changes to this.
Frances said studies show off-leash dogs have detrimental impact on wildlifeand resources. She
said when someone is caught for a violation,itisthetip of the ice berg;it is unlikelythat that is a
one-time violation.She said having adog off-leash in awildlife closure should be one strike and
the participantisout.Shelley said the punishment should match the crime. She saidserious
offenses need to be definedand there should be a requirement to show proof of harm; these
should be one strike. She said the path to reinstatement should be training classes and
certification. She said staff should separate displayingaggression versus actsof aggression.She
said there needs to be evidence of injury if a violationis going to be one strike. John said the
Board agreed to have aggressive dogbehavior be one strike. He saidtheBoardcan revisitthis
topic, but they have already agreed to this.
AGENDA ITEM 1B PAGE 2
Shelley said it should be one strike for entering awildlife closureand two strikes for entering
other closures. Shelley said when it is a guardian’s behavior (such as being in no-dog areaornot
picking up poop) aguardian should gettwo strikes. She said punishment for dog behavior should
be different than guardian behaviorand thereshould betwo different paths to reinstatement.
Shelley said picking up dog excrement should not be part of the V&SProgram. She said
someone with a V&S tagshould not be additionally punished;people should only beticketed or
given strikes on OSMP property.
Tom said non-OSMP violationsshould count against V&S; these informOSMPabout dog and
humanbehavior.He said he agreeswith staffrecommendations on convictionsand with Shelley;
if both violations were humancausedand then thedog should not have to do areinstatement test;
the guardian will still need to go through all other steps,just not the dog-specific test.
Allyn Feinberg said she agreedwith Tom. She said wildlife closures should be one strike, other
areas two strikes in two years.How dog and guardianbehave everywhere is significant; behavior
offOpen Spaceshouldcount. She said the relationship between both dog and guardian is
important;she would not eliminate certification for the dog when the guardian has been
misbehaving.
John said ifsomeoneentered aclosure,knowingly or intentionally,thenit should beone strike.
The other scenarios should be two strikes. He said there should be a degree of discretion left to
therangers and judge. He said violations should only be attainable when they are in an area
where V&S privilegesare enforced; he said the onlyexception would when a dog receives a
violation for being aggressive whileoff Open Space land–that should count towards V&S
strikes.
Tom and Shelley said they agreedwith Johnand modified their response so that an aggressive
dog violation anywhere should counttowards strikes in the V&SProgram.
John said if someone knew there was a wildlife closure and still entered with their dog,they
should receive one strikeand be out of the Program.If a participant unknowingly enters a
closure they should only be issued one strike.Shelley said she agreed with John. Steve said when
aranger charges aperson they can recommend revocationto the court;however,thejudgewill
decide.
Tom said awildlife closure violation is more serious. He said overtime OSMP will seefewer
accidental violationsas people learn the rules.Joe clarified that the city manager’srule(8-3-3)
applies to all seasonal closures, not justwildlife.He said rangers cannotissue asummons unless
aperson made aconscious attempt to enter the closure.
Frances saidshe doesnot agree witha participant getting two strikeswithin two years forbeing
on no-dog trails.People who use these trails are afraid of dogs and allowing dogs there more
than once is unfair. John said the Boardcan come back to this.
AGENDA ITEM 1B PAGE 3
(# of convictions): All recommendations = over a 2 year period?
V&S suite Wildlife
Should
Board Dog off Closure
“Off
No Tag Excrement Reinstatement
MemberLeash No Dog
OSMP”
Count
6-1-16 8-3-3
Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes
Frances
Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) No No
Shelley
Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) At least one dog behavior offenses No
Tom
would be needed to trigger voice
and sight compliance certification
requirement
Yes (2) Yes (1) Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes
Keep certification, and look for a clean cut
Allyn
way to better differentiate
Yes (2) Yes (2) No Yes (2) No
John Looking for a more custom tailored
requirement for reinstatement
Question two –
John said staff should flag what peer agencies are doing and compare violations; there should be
consistency across organizations. He asked what thecharge is for a dog off-leash in Jefferson
County. Staff said it is a dog-at-large violation. Staff will provide a comparison report to the
Board.
Tom said he agrees with staff’s recommendation, but still wants to see the judge having
discretion. He also noted that community serviceshould be an option as part of,orto replace a
fine. Steve said with excrement removalitis in the codefor community serviceto be considered
by the judge.
Frances said these fine amounts might not make an impact onsomeone. To some they can afford
a ticket price with no problem, but time is more valuable andhaving to give that up would make
more of an impression. She said there are also those who cannot afford these tickets; community
service should be anoption for both groups.
All Board members agreed with staff recommendation for bond amounts.
Fines
Board V&S SuiteSeasonal Closures et al.
MemberDog at Large 8-3-3
$100/$200/$300 $100
Frances
$100/$200/$300 $100
Shelley
$100/$200/$300 $100
Tom
$100/$200/$300 $100
Allyn
$100/$200/$300 $100
John
Question Three –
Frances said the fee for City of Boulder residentsshould be higher. Steve said City of Boulder
residents are also required to pay for a city dog license, so their fee is lower. Mike said everyone
participating will have to show proofof rabies, but the V&S Program does not require proof of a
AGENDA ITEM 1B PAGE 4
licensefor outside City of Boulder. Frances said she would like the City of Boulder fee to go up,
and the other two fees to go down. She said there should be a renewal fee.
Shelley said thefee structure should be related to costs; this should be a revenue neutral
program. She said this should align with the city licensing program; fees and renewals should
happen at the same time for both programs. The V&S Program will be generating a lot of money
for the city licensing program; the city should contribute to the OSMP program. She said staff
should explore costs further. She also noted that the revenue from this program so far should be
put towards implementation. Steve said staff worked with adatabase expert on this estimateso,
these numbers are fairly accurate.
Tomsaid costs should be recoveredovertime.He said there will be a large number of people
renewing each year, so having a three year renewal option would be good;itshould align with
city dog licensing. The fee for the first dog should be lowerand increasedfor the second.
Allyn said the goal ofthe programshould be to pay for itself.She said a ten dollar registration
fee is reasonable;however, 80dollars for out of town is steep. She agrees with having an annual
renewal to help keep information updated, but suggested keeping the renewal fee low. Steve
noted that tags,each time they are renewed,will change color; doing multiple years will make
for a potentially confusing overlap. Tom suggested having the color of the tag indicate when it is
going to expire.
John said he would like to see the overall budget of the program and how staff came to those
numbers;he would like to have it available so that people can comment on it. He asked staffif
Open Space can accommodatethose who are low incomewithin Boulder County.
Frances said aone year renewal is important. Shelley said staff couldsend an e-mailinstead of
an annual renewalthatincludes an educationalpiece(i.e. linking to V&S video or a reminder to
pick up poop).
Board
Registration Renewal
Member
$10/$15/$20
Frances
$20/$35/$75
one year renewal is very important to keep
levels of knowledge high
$10-15/$25/$40
Shelley
$5/$10/$30
not annual
Consider reduced rates for special needs.
track licensing timeline
Tom break even track licensing timeline
Increase second dog charge(more renewal options)
$10/$-/Lower
Allyn
Tracking participation is beneficial so annual
renewal beneficial but $0 too low
Increase second dog charge
John Would like greater detail on cost model especially costs of
other pieces (e.g., education)
Option 3-ish
Option 2-ish
0/$15/$20
$10/$30/$50
Consider reduced rates for special needs.
AGENDA ITEM 1B PAGE 5
Question Four –
John said monitoring on how OSMP is doing as a department surrounding this program would be
good to have on hand for the public to review. Mike said staff will be publishing this information
in the annual report. John said he would like to have thisrecorded in the monitoringfor other
violations as well, such as slack lining. Mike said the report will include all ranger citations.
Allyn said staff should ask community experts to help with recommendationsfor monitoring and
adaptive management. Mark said staff did an expert workshop for the Grassland Management
Plan and had a great response. Allyn said having that kind of expertise put into the planmakes it
more objective.
Tom said staff should not rush to get results on monitoring; this is something that requires a lot
of decisions and will take a long time. He said monitoring efforts should become partof the
Overarching Issues;to look at how dogsareaffecting the system versus just what dogs aredoing.
This is a good issue to beginlooking at in thelong-term vision and in terms of carrying capacity.
Mark said staff does look at these issuesand the annual reports will give an opportunity to show
the resultsof this monitoring.
Shelley said in order for any monitoring to be worthwhile and to make policy and management
decisions, staffneedsto have studies that measureactual impact. There needs to be more
oversight and transparency. She said outside involvementfrom independent peoplewould be
helpful. She said staff needs to rebuild confidence intheir studies. Mark asked about the Board’s
concern for credibility of staff’swork. Shelley said there is abias that has been questioned. She
said to make sure that whatever staff is coming up with can stand scrutiny; she would like to
make sure the data ismeasuring impacts and looking atthe bigger picture. Francessaid asubset
of society will question study/science because they donot like the results. OSMP has qualified
scientists and other scientists would come up withthesame results.
Allyn saidshe was not suggesting staff needs the assistancefrom outside OSMPstaff, butshe
thinks making use of others expertisecan be useful. She said having a workshoplike staff did for
the Grassland Management Planis a good idea. John said peer review is awayto help enhance
acceptance; getting an outside reality check has value. John said staff should be as clear as
possible intheplan. Mike said staff will have a different model than what was done previously.
Tom said there is a cost involved with adaptive managementand he would caution staff to keep
this in mind when implementing a monitoring system. He said that conflict needs to be better
definedand should be looked at from the most sensitiveperson’sperspective.
Board Member Repeat the Information Session Outsiders Take Test Other
Frances Yes; value in periodic review of No Need greater protection of
the information the resource
Shelley Not Annually; use the new No Make incremental changes;
system to watch the video, keep FIDOS .
people up to date Marketing help offered
Tom Not annually; but every five No
years (or so)
Allyn Not annually; but every five No Look at the POSAC survey.
AGENDA ITEM 1B PAGE 6
years (or so)
John Not annually; but every five No Flesh out carrots.
years (or so)
Additional Conversation –
Frances said the information session needs to be repeatedevery year.She said non-city residents
should be heldto same standards as city residents.
Frances said resources have been impacted by V&S.This program should have thegoal of
bringing back wildlifeand protecting the resource; on trail corridor would be a good
addition/change.
Shelley said all participants should follow the same rules. She said an informationsessionshould
not be repeated every year; however, sending out reminders for education is good;the best
success will come from incremental changes. She said staff should be conscious of changes that
are being madeand tonot make changes too excessive. She also said OSMP should provide
resources to help peoplebe compliant.
Tom said all participants should have the same requirements. He said participants should not
have to repeat an information session. He agreed with Shelley thatperiodic review is agood
idea, but not every year. Allyn agreedwith Tom.
John said the rate of compliance overall is pretty good with most things. John said he agrees with
Allyn and Tom on information session and education reminders. He said this should be a
program that continuously reinforces.
Shelley offered heroutreach and education marketing background. John said the Board and staff
can talk about this at the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:04p.m.
Draft minutes prepared by Leah Case.
AGENDA ITEM 1B PAGE 7